Nice article, I liked most of it.
But, Terrorism itself is not sufficiently analyzed, instead the sense
as defined by current protagonists is used.
Initially, Hitler berated the Allied bombing of railway lines as act
of terrorism, in so far historically "Terrorism" has just been one of
many methods of waging war. So, "The War on Terrorism" is from a
philoligacal POV just as stupid as warring against any inanimate -
and therefore uninvolved - party. A "war on carpets" would make just
as much sense as a "war on carpet bombing".
The author refuses to see the correct corollary: "War on terrorists",
orrefuses to confront the real issue: the clash of cultures. As we
can see in the current uproar about the pope's supposedly
anti-islamistic remarks, we should be asking ourselves how it came
about that the USA (and to an extent Europe) allowed itself to be
forced into a Christian V. Saracen war.
The basis for all criticism is the criticism of religion.
But, Terrorism itself is not sufficiently analyzed, instead the sense
as defined by current protagonists is used.
Initially, Hitler berated the Allied bombing of railway lines as act
of terrorism, in so far historically "Terrorism" has just been one of
many methods of waging war. So, "The War on Terrorism" is from a
philoligacal POV just as stupid as warring against any inanimate -
and therefore uninvolved - party. A "war on carpets" would make just
as much sense as a "war on carpet bombing".
The author refuses to see the correct corollary: "War on terrorists",
orrefuses to confront the real issue: the clash of cultures. As we
can see in the current uproar about the pope's supposedly
anti-islamistic remarks, we should be asking ourselves how it came
about that the USA (and to an extent Europe) allowed itself to be
forced into a Christian V. Saracen war.
The basis for all criticism is the criticism of religion.